Today I read in Financial Times Germany that David Carruthers from Betonsports is out of prison. Betonsports is rated with D- by Sportsbookreview. David Carruthers has paied 1 Million and must stay in an hotel in a suberb of St.Louis.
-
-
Essentially all they did was transfer him to a minimum security prison, which is the most favorable description you can give to any seedy hotel in a suburb of St. Louis.Comment -
I do hope this dude fights this thing to the bitter end.
I think the US District Att. will be desperate for a plea bargain, knowing there's not a chance in HELL for a conviction before a jury. At least that's the way I read it.Comment -
they convicted cohen,why not caruthersComment -
2Comment -
Cohen was a US citizen, therefore subject to US laws.
Carruthers, of course, is a Brit., and, presumably, NOT subject to US laws.
Cohen was arrested b/c WSEX was taking phone bets from US citizens who identified themselves as calling from the US. Therefore, the Wire Act came into play. Nothing to do w/ the internet.
I would lke to see how this thing plays out...Hope Carruthers does not cop a plea.Comment -
Wrong and wrong.Originally posted by Richy Rich
First of all, nationality is not a defense. It never has been a defense and never will be a defense.
Second, my case had more counts that were internet bets than phone bets. Counts 3, 4, and 5 of my indictment were all internet bets. Nothing to do with the phone.
Finally, BOS ran a lot more of their operations on US soil than WSEX ever did. WSEX had zero operations in the United States as opposed to BOS which ran quite a bit of marketing here.Comment -
Thanks for clarifying. I stand corrected…
JC, the internet bets then would have to be considered to fall under the Wire Act, right?
I thought there were federal court decisions? nullifying the 1961 Wire Act as it relates to internet betting. Hence, the three stooges (Leach, Kyle, Goodlatte) trying to get a anti-internet gambling bill passed.
If the gov’t can already nail US citizens on the Wire Act, why the need for this bill?Comment -
I'll say this much jumper, caruthers has one hell of a lawyer!Originally posted by jumperComment -
Yes, internet sports bets are covered under the Wire Act. There are no court decision to the contrary.Originally posted by Richy Rich
The bill raises the prison time from 2 years to 5 years, and adds casino and poker to the Wire Act. Plus it outlaws financial transactions with the offshore gambling operations. It also mandates the governement spend $10 million a year enforcing it.Comment -
Next post)Comment -
I got it now...This site clarifies it for me
However, the Wire Act and internet betting, as I understand it, applies to the bookie, NOT the gambler. Right?
--------------------------------------------------
Court Rules Internet Gambling Is Not Illegal
A federal judge has ruled in a major decision that Internet gambling is not a crime -- sometimes.
Judge Stanwood R. Duval, Jr., of the U.S. District Court in New Orleans issued the ruling in late February, 2001. He dismissed two test cases brought against ********** and ****, allowing Web betting sites to continue to take credit cards.
Judge Duval gave many reasons for throwing out the suits, including a legal conclusion that Internet gambling's main nemesis, the federal Wire Act, applies only to sports betting.
The opinion illustrates how important it is for lawyers to research the law before they file their lawsuits. With a few changes, the nation's two largest credit card companies might have been ordered to stop being involved with Internet gambling.
The cases arose from what should have been a fairly easy legal question: If a player uses his credit card to make bets online, does he have to pay the bill when it comes in the mail?
In most states and under most sets of facts the answer is clearly, "No." Since 1710, when Queen Anne of England signed the Statute of Anne, gambling debts have been unenforceable under the common law of the English-speaking world.
Anyone who lends anyone else money, knowing the money will be used for gambling, is making a contract that is normally unenforceable.
Nevada is the best example. If a Las Vegas casino accepts an oral bet and the player loses and refuses to pay, the casino has no legal right to sue. The Nevada Legislature had to pass a special law to allow suits on written markers.
In 1991, the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that a gambler, Richard Kommit, did not have to pay his ********** bill for $5,500 cash he got from an ATM on the floor of an Atlantic City casino. The Court held that under the laws of Massachusetts, where Kommit lived, New Jersey, where he gambled, and Connecticut, where the bank issuing the ********** was located, credit card loans for gambling are unenforceable.
In 1998, Cynthia H. Haines was sued by ********** and **** for more than $70,000, money they claimed she lost gambling via the Internet. Haines's attorney, Ira Rothken of Corte Madera, California, filed a counterclaim. He carefully limited his legal claims to California state laws, which bar credit card loans for gambling. Although he asked for money damages, he was mainly seeking a court order that ********** and **** had to stop doing business in California with online gambling operators.
The terms of the settlement are secret, but it is clear that Rothken won big.
So what did the lawyers do wrong in the most recent cases? Just about everything.
They initially filed 11 class actions in federal courts in Illinois, Alabama, New York and California. The cases, which grew to be 33 by the time of the decision, were all transferred to Judge Duval. Two were chosen to be tests of the law.
But the lawyers had chosen the wrong law. They had sued the credit card companies under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), asking for lots and lots of money.
RICO actions are always difficult to win. Plaintiffs' lawyers would have to prove that **** and ********** were part of a criminal enterprise in cahoots with Internet gaming operators. Even if the operators themselves were included as defendants, which they were not, there simply was no "enterprise." You can use your **** to buy pizza, but does that mean **** is in an enterprise to sell pizza?
RICO also requires a pattern of racketeering activity, meaning specific federal crimes or state gambling felonies had been committed.
Judge Duval got the parties to agree to two test cases, involving players from New Hampshire and Kansas. But plaintiffs had no way of showing these credit card companies had committed gambling felonies. Because illegal gambling is almost always a misdemeanor, there simply were no laws on the books in New Hampshire and only one in Kansas that could conceivably apply.
Plaintiffs' attorneys tried to find federal crimes. Naturally, they cited the Wire Act.
But, they had made the mistake of limiting their lawsuits to Internet casinos and lotteries. Judge Duval looked to the actual language of the statute as well as its history and ruled that the Wire Act is limited to sports betting.
When the U.S. Attorneys wanted to show they could go after Internet operators, they were careful to make sure that every operation took sports bets by phone. It is unclear whether the Wire Act covers Internet casinos, but it was enacted to allow the federal government to go after bookies who took sports bets by phone.
If the complaints had been framed differently, plaintiffs might have won. My advice for any lawyer fighting Internet gambling: Forget RICO, file in state court, make sure your clients were making sports bets by phone, and don't get greedy -- getting a court order that closes down a business will bring about a nice, largeComment -
Yes, it applies to the business, not the player.
That 5th Circuit case, which the DOJ does not acknowledge, said the Wire Act did not apply to casino games. It does apply to sports and horses.Comment -
JC, the only two differences I see from your case and this one are:
You were a US citizen. Citizenship is not a defense, but creates a great court debate.
In your case, a US citizen took bets.
In DC's case, a UK citizen took bets. The UK and CR believe the bet occurs where the server is located. The DOJ clearly believes they occur here. No court has ever ruled on this as far as I know because they have not needed to do so.
In your case, you could have taken bets from Africa and as a US citizen you were violating our law.
In DC's case, whether or not he can be guilty depends on where the court and of course the jury decides the bets took place.
The second difference is the attitude towards online gambling. Back in 98 a very small percent of people gambled online - most people did not even know how to buy an airline ticket online.
Now with the poker explosion, Congress says 40,000,000 (Although I think the number is high) people gamble online. Anyways, it is gonna be very hard to find 12 people to agree online gambling should be illegal. The judge can try to get them to say guilty, but if one has balls and says no, he is not convicted.
This is very similar to the 80 year old woman the state of FL arrested for j walking for going too slow in a crosswalk. She clearly broke the law. Unfortunately, they tried and could not get a jury to convict even though the whole jury agreed she broke a law that most thought should not exist.
I honestly give him a 50/50 chance at innocence.
-SeanComment -
I give Carruthers 0% of being found not guilty.
One of the charges is racketeering. BOS had agents signing up gamblers on U.S. soil at college campuses and NFL stadiums. What will be his defense for that?Comment -
His defense for that will be that that was before he joined the company. Those reports were in 2002 or 2003 and honestly I have not seen the van in a few years.
But anyways, if it goes to trial - a big if - it simply comes down to whether or not there is one gambler on that jury. There are people in this country who think gambling is wrong, as wrong as raping someone. Those convict no matter what. There are people who don't care about gambling - those probably convict. There is a growing percentage of people like me who think it is lunacy for the government to control private life on topics like gambling. They could present five million copies of bets taken on the white house lawn and I would still vote not guilty. If you get one guy like me on the jury, it is hung.
-SeanComment -
Taking bets from Africa to Antigua would not violate US law because I am a US citizen. US law does not apply to all of their citizens no matter where they travel, with the rare exception of these new laws they have been passing lately for sex crimes.
My first line of defense was that the bets were taken by a licensed Antiguan company that was licensed to do such an activity. In Antigua's eyes the bets took place in Antigua. Of course the US has their own self serving position on the matter.
The nationality thing will not be much of a debate in court unless Carrutehrs takes the stand. The judge is not going to let his lawyer introduce it since it is not a legal defense.
Carruthers joined the company no later than 2001, so he can't hide behind it happened before he got there.
Some of his biggest problems are all of the shenanigans that without a doubt took place on US soil. And when you talk about how things play in front of a jury, it will not look good when it coems out they owned "watchdog" sites that ranked their operations #1.
I hope he fights, but I really wonder what he is fighting for? He has no company to go back to and a hell of a lot of downside if he loses. As many have pointed out, there's a greater chance than not that he will lose. I even had a big gambler on my jury who got comped in the casinos, it didn't help. It's all about the judge.
I have some solid advice for him and if he is reading this I invite him to reach out to me through one of the forum owners and I will be happy to share it with him.
On the plus side, he has the WTO decision which I did not have. On the downside, he is facing many more serious charges involving actual operations on US soil.Comment -
Why the hell did the gambler not vote you not guilty. Have you spoken to him since?
The judge could not have paid me enough to find you guilty. If I'm on a jury and I dont believe in the law, I'm aquitting regardless of what the judge says.
If you don't mind sharing - what are you up to these days? Are you back into trading?
-SeanComment -
I hope the scumbag fights the charges all the way. The Fool!!
The feds get a chip on their shoulder when you fight them. An extremely high pct. of people take plea deals in federal court. The ones that don't and lose get nearly the max on their prison sentences. Fight it all the way David!Comment
